why americans (let me forget my blue passport for a moment) think that their model is good ? Rome in each of their incarnations (republic or w/ emperors or whatever) lasted much longer than USA till now... yet it failed (granted what others inherited was not so bad, thank you, Romans)... so why such a belief in what you built that it will last a century longer ?

Yup, I voted for Clinton,,While his wife in the white house (the I paid for to they use it), he having sex, when he supposed be working,,Excellent example..In Baca, hussein Obama,

if u make more then $250,000 U need to support those the don't want to work,in pay more taxes..(if U don't know about taxes, here is a real, example, my house taxes, $7,600.00 a year..taxes for water,trash,electrical,natural gas,tooth paste, tooth brush, food,tires for your car, taxes for your car, taxes, for the plate of your car, taxes for the oil, the gas, to clean it, no vacum it, even for the battery, in case it die., i have a pool, taxes for that, if u want to watch tv that as well too..Even walk in the street, taxes coming from your teeth.) huseein obama ,promise paradise, and be the next messiah,those the want all free still believing on him...gas went up , housing, and even to clean the toilet, ...all,

,,,so take the example, people do not want to die, now, they wil pay taxes for the gasket, as well the spot in the cemetery, or if they get burn, they need to pay taxes for that as well...oh boy, I am afraid to die, wandering how much taxes they will charge., free school..wandering why they call it free, when u paying for it..taxes for 911...taxes to drink your wine...taxes in top of the taxes

World coming to the end..Read the Bible, they will come dress as messiah, as barraca hussein, WE, all the same..take a look at obama 2016, U can take a look, in you will see.

Its in the Bible, God will punish those, the want free stuff..So he send hussein.

Oh boy, I know this will cost me more taxes as well....what a great example!

Because no society in the history of mankind has provided more equality of opportunity to so many people.

Look, I don't believe that I am in any sense anti-american. My children are US citizens, I love the american landscape and american culture. And so on. But what you have written above reads to me as the kind of thing that gringos like to say about themselves to generate a warm feeling. I might be wrong about that, but a few metrics wouldn't go amiss. Social mobility is surely measurable. Are there measurements that prove your case? I would assume that in the USA as in every other human society, where you start heavily influences, but does not absolutely determine, where you end up. Do you have evidence that the relative influences are different in the USA? At the level of anecdote, it would surely be easy to instance French or Argentinian or New Zealand leaders who come from humble backgrounds and Americans in high places who were born with trust funds awaiting them. And if you are talking about raw numbers (a dubious approach, but let that pass), what about China right now? Plenty of careers open to talent there, it seems to me, at the same time as plenty of easy paths for the children of the party elite.

Look, I don't believe that I am in any sense anti-american. My children are US citizens, I love the american landscape and american culture. And so on. But what you have written above reads to me as the kind of thing that gringos like to say about themselves to generate a warm feeling. I might be wrong about that, but a few metrics wouldn't go amiss. Social mobility is surely measurable. Are there measurements that prove your case? I would assume that in the USA as in every other human society, where you start heavily influences, but does not absolutely determine, where you end up. Do you have evidence that the relative influences are different in the USA? At the level of anecdote, it would surely be easy to instance French or Argentinian or New Zealand leaders who come from humble backgrounds and Americans in high places who were born with trust funds awaiting them. And if you are talking about raw numbers (a dubious approach, but let that pass), what about China right now? Plenty of careers open to talent there, it seems to me, at the same time as plenty of easy paths for the children of the party elite.

I can't lay my finger on the citation right now, but recent metrics show that social mobility in the U.S. is in fact lower than in many other of the industrialized nations. The reason for that is not the system of government per se, but the degree of wealth inequality which has the effect of stripping opportunity from those at the bottom of the social heap, think quality of education for one.

Unfortunately, although the United States was founded on the most profound principles, American "execeptionalism" has become a myth the deluded right wing fringe cling to along with their guns and religion.

This is simply untrue. The Republican dominated house of representatives vowed to obstruct Mr. Obama at every opportunity, and they have. One canít succeed at leading when the other party overtly conspires to attempt the presidentís failure. Itís telling that this not only didnít work out for them but lead to a huge embarrassment for the GOP at this election.

Despite the obstruction, Mr Obama had some extraordinary achievements in his first term. All by itself the affordable care act (aka Obama care) is an achievement that has eluded every other president. The fact that we did not drop into a Depression is itself another extraordinary achievement. There are many more examples.

Romney's pandering to all sides of so many issues makes me think he would have done far, far worse. He lacks credibility.

While I donít understand the kindergarten reference, i join you in hoping that that the House majority will change their tactics. On the other hand, the design of the 2 party system serves to insure that gridlock takes place on the federal level, and in that regard, it is doing as intended. Unfortunately millions of Americans suffer for the arrogance and obstinance of the GOP. I'm certain far far more would suffer with a Republican president. After all, the last one was at the helm and lead the charge to the destruction the US and most of the global economy.

It was amazing that the President and the democratic controlled congress were able to push through the healthcare bill, to vote for it, without everyone having time to read it. That is really amazing. Do I agree with most of Obamacare? Yes, I do. But I think the process was a terrible example of how a government should work. And the process was led by/approved by President Obama.

One of the President's main job is to find a way to get the opposing sides in Congress to reach a compromise...to work together. The President must be an effective leader and help guide the government in order that the country's business is taken care of. Bill Clinton was very good at this. Either President Obama has not been able to do this, or he has not really wanted to do this. The method used with Obamacare is a very good example of not working with people.

I think that GW Bush was a terrible president in his last term. He was the one in charge, but the congress was completely controlled by the Democrats. The Democrat Congress are to blame for allowing the financial problems to happen. They could have headed this off, or maybe lessened it at least, but they did not. And President Bush and his people should have done more to prevent the problems also, so both are to blame. You can not simply blame Bush and give the Dems a pass. They were in charge.

Currently, I do believe that the Republicans in Congress have been more guilty of acting like upset kindergartners. Once again, the President has to try to correct this. He has to try to get them to play nice together. It is his job.

... World coming to the end..Read the Bible, they will come dress as messiah, as barraca hussein, WE, all the same..take a look at obama 2016, U can take a look, in you will see.

Its in the Bible, God will punish those, the want free stuff..So he send hussein ...

Er, either your account has been hacked, or you need to put down the snakes & start taking those meds. No really. The rantings of Bronze Age, desert-dwelling goat herders are all very interesting, but the relevance to the world today is pretty much zilch.

Er, either your account has been hacked, or you need to put down the snakes & start taking those meds. No really. The rantings of Bronze Age, desert-dwelling goat herders are all very interesting, but the relevance to the world today is pretty much zilch.

Not so sure Bill, I agree with much of the sentiment but with what do we fill the vacuum in peoples lives if we take away religion or organised belief? True, much misery and death has been caused through the actions of various churches over the centuries but much joy, comfort and good has been brought about by them as well. There is a trend towards spiritualism in the modern world with much talk of personal journeys etc, which is certainly an improvement on the more way out cults but it hardly addresses the role of the individual within a society.

I wonder if the elephant in the room is that the adversarial model of government is well past its use-by date and it is high time to give rule by consensus as suck at the sauce bottle.

That is pretty much the situation in Ireland with hardly a discernible difference between the two main parties. It's fine when the money is flowing but an utter disaster when decisions need to be made and there is no apparent mechanism for holding the government to account in the form of a strong or even visible opposition.

Nope, give me adversary politics anytime. The alternative sounds all very well and jolly but where are the success stories? China hardly counts.

The Republicans aren't interested in democracy even though they took part in the process. They see it as a win win situation. Try and win the election and if they fail then sabotage everything they can afterwards. They represent the money men of America who in reality own and control the economic system. That is what Obama is trying to win against and in reality is failing. You can't democratically defeat the REAL owners of the country.

The Republicans aren't interested in democracy even though they took part in the process. They see it as a win win situation. Try and win the election and if they fail then sabotage everything they can afterwards. They represent the money men of America who in reality own and control the economic system. That is what Obama is trying to win against and in reality is failing. You can't democratically defeat the REAL owners of the country.

The United States is not a democracy. Never was. But, you are correct about the Republicans trying to sabotage the Democrats. Plenty of the Democrats in the government are also wealthy. Including President Obama. As a matter of fact, if you do a search for the richest members of congress, you will find that the richest member of congress is indeed a Republican, but 7 out of the 10 richest are Democrats.

Like my father in law says about politicians in general (he is German and has never visited America), you can put all of them in a sack, shake them up real good and pour them out on the table, and you can not tell who is who. They are all the same.

Being wealthy doesn't automatically mean you are part of owning the economic system. The wealthy who own or are large shareholders in big businesses are partly the owners and wield great power. Those who inherit, win the lottery and possibly steal don't have that power. There is a distinction. The Democrats who own big businesses will possibly have a social consciousness , but the Republicans less so. They may give to charities but they aren't giving away their power.

Being wealthy doesn't automatically mean you are part of owning the economic system. The wealthy who own or are large shareholders in big businesses are partly the owners and wield great power. Those who inherit, win the lottery and possibly steal don't have that power. There is a distinction. The Democrats who own big businesses will possibly have a social consciousness , but the Republicans less so. They may give to charities but they aren't giving away their power.

When is the last time either a Democrat or Republican gave away their power?

Can you show proof where Republicans have less of a social consciousness than Democrats? I am not a Republican or a Democrat, but I am curious.

I can't lay my finger on the citation right now, but recent metrics show that social mobility in the U.S. is in fact lower than in many other of the industrialized nations.

It's not about outcome, it's about the framework.

Sure ... social mobility is higher in Finland than the US ... but Finland is tiny country of 5 million people without the same level of immigration and demographic diversity as the US. The US is a true melting pot of 300 million people.

We also have an financial system that supports entrepreneurship in a fashion that is unique.

The availability of capital for start-up businesses, the flexibility of the workforce, the LACK of a sense of entitlement (contrary to Republican BS) and the true equality of opportunity that exists makes the American Dream something that is very real from what I've seen ... and I've lived and traveled and done business all over the world.

In baseball statistics, we are starting to realize you need to adjust stats for "park effects" ... baseball stadiums differ, and the outcomes need to be viewed relative to the conditions under which they were achieved ... I feel that this topic calls for that kind of perspective.